9 replies to this topic

[drewlovesomaha]

Obviously, Phil Ivey is as good as humanly possible and will probably someday own every poker record in existence, but I am just wondering if the 600k he won for 2nd place at the 100k buy in should be counted in "official" tournament winnings. Only 24 entrants bought in and 100k of his 600k was his own money. What if he finished 4th or 5th and just got his money back? Yes, many of the events played 15 or more years ago had small fields but only the Main Event had prize money anywhere close to 600k in those days. I think the records would have more integrity if they excluded "high roller" events where even many top notch tourney pros are excluded due to the high buy in. There should be a 15k cap for tourneys, allowing exceptions for 50k HORSE (or mixed games championship-whatever they call it this year) and WPT championship event, but there should be plenty of satellites offered for those two events.


There are guys like Dan Harrington, David Pham, even Scotty Nguyen who are truly great tourney players but would be at a severe disadvantage in earnings potential if these high roller events start to pop up at more events. Obviously, Daniel and Phil Ivey are already two of the most talented, I don't think they need an extra edge to separate themselves from the pack in the next couple years. So, if you want to have them, that is great, but I would not count the results anymore than I would count Gus Hansen's money from Poker Superstars 1.

[Tehtoe]

Danga Cards certainly thinks so.

[king_tanner]

As long as the event is open to the public I think it should count. Events that should not count are invite only tourneys like the NBC Heads Up and stuff like that.

[DanielNegreanu]

I think we need a much better system for what is considered poker earnings. ANY invitational event shouldn't count. That includes Poker After Dark, NBC Heads Up, or any of the other made for TV events. They should absolutely not count.

Ivey's win in the high roller, however, should definitely count, because anyone could have played in that event.

[keith crime]

How about a system that finally lets us know if these guys are making any money

if annie duke has 4 million in earnings and has spent 5 million in entries - who cares

[aucu]

I think we need a much better system for what is considered poker earnings. ANY invitational event shouldn't count. That includes Poker After Dark, NBC Heads Up, or any of the other made for TV events. They should absolutely not count.

Ivey's win in the high roller, however, should definitely count, because anyone could have played in that event.

You say this and at the same time don't think re-buy events should be included. Both have a similar effect of giving the larger bankrolls an advantage.

[CrookedLink]

You say this and at the same time don't think re-buy events should be included. Both have a similar effect of giving the larger bankrolls an advantage.

I don't think Daniel ever said rebuy events shouldn't count towards someone's all time money earnings. Just that they shouldn't be bracelet events.

I might be wrong though.

[K_dense]

I think we need a much better system for what is considered poker earnings. ANY invitational event shouldn't count. That includes Poker After Dark, NBC Heads Up, or any of the other made for TV events. They should absolutely not count.

Ivey's win in the high roller, however, should definitely count, because anyone could have played in that event.

did he win the high roller?

daniel , pls get rid of your sig pic, i get vertigo every time i see it

[Fade2241]

How about a system that finally lets us know if these guys are making any money

if annie duke has 4 million in earnings and has spent 5 million in entries - who cares

It'd be nice but I'm sure it'd be pretty difficult to track years of previous tourneys. Plus, with backers and people taking pieces of action, etc we'll never know for sure how much a person is up or down. It'd help guess the number closer, tho.

[Balloon guy]

Personally I think only high rollers events should count. Is there are reasonable excuse for Jamie Gold being the winning-est player in history for what...3 years?


It should only count for tournaments with buy ins over $25,000.

and the Sunday millions of course

And SnGs with $10 million buy ins